Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 17 May 19 >

May 18[edit]

Category:Stanley family (English aristocracy)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. A disambiguator has not been shown to be necessary. – Fayenatic London 15:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There already is a relatively unused category, Stanley family, which is also for the primary use (British aristocrats and politicians) —МандичкаYO 😜 21:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Audley-Stanley family to Stanley family. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well moved. They were the Stanley family originally of Audley, but had ceased to be connected with it by the relevant time. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anything, Reverse merge, but I am dubious as to whether two nobles whose mothers were members of the Stanley dynasty(ies) really belong. I can therefore see a good reason for deleting the target (but it is not tagged). Categories on "families" are liable to pick up unrelated articles on those who merely share the surname, so that I would prefer to retain a disambiguator to prevent that. There is little change of us needing a category for any other aristocratic family, so that Category:Stanley family (aristocracy) would be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no other prominent Stanley family, so a disambiguation is not needed. There is no Stanley family of jazz musicians, for example. The fear that people may accidentally be put into the category just because they have the last name isn't a reason to add a disambiguation. —МандичкаYO 😜 22:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian concert films[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as WP:SOFTDELETE. I will upmerge one page Switchfootage as it does not appear to fit the new name. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to better reflect the actual content of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Mayors of Daly City, California[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just four articles, of which three are up for AFD as not passing WP:NPOL — there's only one person here whose article definitely isn't going anywhere, and even his notability claim has more to do with passing NATHLETE for his sports career than NPOL as a mayor. Daly City is a "council-manager" city, which means the mayors are selected internally among the city councillors and serve ceremonially for a year, but have no actual executive authority. So it's not a city whose mayors pass NPOL just for being mayors per se — which means that there's no prospect of growth here. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' pending the outcomes of the AFDs. Let's see how mnay articles are involved before making a decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have an established consensus that five is the minimum number of mayors who have to already have articles before a dedicated "mayors of city" category is warranted. So even if all of the articles survive (which they won't) this is still a WP:SMALLCAT, with little to no prospect of crossing the bar as the city's mayors aren't inherently notable per WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your assertion that there is an "established consensus" as you describe.
And what's the hurry? Why not wait for the AfDs actual outcomes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you have a project ahead of you of going back through years of CFD discussions to overturn all the several hundred discussions on "Mayors of (City)" categories that were closed as deletes on exactly the basis I described. Consensus is established by the discussions that have actually happened on similar categories in the past, not by whether you personally choose to agree with those conclusions or not, and CFD has an extremely clear and unmistakable history of deleting "mayors of (city)" if the category population falls short of five, with very close to no examples of the contrary ever happening unless somebody got the population over five by rushing additional articles into place before the discussion closed. And "the hurry" is that because AFD closers do not routinely check the categories to see if they've been depopulated below the SMALLCAT threshold as part of the article deletion process, the category will get forgotten, and just linger indefinitely as a one-item category, if it doesn't get addressed concurrently with the article discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I agree that many many small categories of mayors have been deleted. And I agree that in most cases that was the right thing to do.
However I disagree with your assertion that this amounts to a consensus to impose a rigid mathematical formula which excludes the standard exceptions in WP:SMALLCAT and excludes editorial discretion. As you may recall, you and another pushed your rigid mathematical formula in a recent discussion of Category:Mayors of Herzliya and that closed as "no consensus".
So yes, there is consensus that 5 is a good rule-of-thumb ... but no, there isn't a consensus that it is a bright line rule.
As to the AfDs, how hard is it to make a note to watch their outcomes? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Await outcome of AFDs. 4 articles is a little small for a category. If all four survive, we need to think about this then. If only 1 or 2 survive, merge as nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC) [reply]
  • Relisting comment, meanwhile 3 articles have survived in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I made my !vote above pending the AfD outcomes. If only 1 or 2 articles survived I'd have changed to "delete", and if all had survived I'd not hesitate to say "keep". With 3 it's borderline so I looked a little more at Daly City to assess prospects of expansion. Population a little over 100,000 people, so not a small place. Median houehold income 2012–2016 of $79,346[1] vs California median of $63,783[2], so it is a modestly prosperous place of decent size and thus like;y to have media coverage. On balance I reckon there's a decent chance of expansion, so I still say keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A city's median household income is completely irrelevant to the matter of whether its mayors pass NPOL or not. What you left out of your assessment is that Daly City is a "council-manager" city, in which the mayoralty is a purely ceremonial role that rotates annually, so that everybody on city council gets a turn, but has no executive authority in its own right (which is exactly the same reason why we deem the vast majority of British mayors to be non-notable.) So a mayor of Daly City actually has no prospect of being notable for that fact in its own right, and survives only if he or she already has some other notability claim for some other reason independent of the mayoralty. Bearcat (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: you continue to take a rigidly formulaic view of notability which is nothing to do with policy.
You rightly note that per WP:NPOL, no mayor is automatically notable for holding that office. However, NPOL is a red herring. It doesn't apply here, so forget about it.
Your understanding of policy then falls apart catastrophically.
Anyone, whatever their role in life, may still be notable per WP:GNG. The fact that they are not automatically notable is irrelevant when assessing them against GNG.
A lack of executive authority is no disqualifier. For example, Ireland has no executive mayors, but plenty of Irish mayors are WP:GNG-notable because they get coverage for their ceremonial role (which is also rotated on an annual basis).
In my view, the chances of a ceremonial mayor attracting enough media coverage depends partly on the size of the city, because a big-city mayor attracts more eyes than a village. It also depends partly on how well-developed the local media is, and wealthier places have better-resourced media. So in my judgement, Daly City mayors have an above-average chance of meeting WP:GNG.
You may weigh the chances differently, but those are matters of editorial judgement rather than policy. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of policy does not "fall apart catastrophically". It is certainly possible that a ceremonial mayor may still clear GNG, but that's not one iota different from the way that almost anybody doing any job might theoretically clear GNG as an unusual case over and above their otherwise not inherently notable class of topic — it's theoretically possible that someone could get over GNG for winning a tiddlywinks competition, too, but that's unlikely enough that "but it might be possible in theory" is not a reason why a category for tiddlywinks players would be exempted from having to escape SMALLCAT in advance of enough articles actually existing to justify it. The test for dedicated "mayors of city" categories is not "how many articles might technically be possible to create in theory", but "how many articles actually already exist today". The prospect of getting a category populated past the required minimum number to escape WP:SMALLCAT has to be actual, not just a theoretical exercise in "hey, anything is possible", before that prospect becomes a valid reason to keep a SMALLCAT — and that's why my understanding of policy isn't incorrect and doesn't fall apart. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Why do you continue to post interpretations of WP:SMALLCAT which are completely false?
Do you deliberately post untruths in the hope that someone may believe lies?
Or have you simply never actually read WP:SMALLCAT?
Here's a few examples:
  1. Bearcat says: The test for dedicated "mayors of city" categories is not "how many articles might technically be possible to create in theory", but "how many articles actually already exist today". Not true: a) WP:SMALLCAT does not mention mayors; b) WP:SMALLCAT applies to categories which "will never have more than a few members". Note that word "never". It does not mean "actually already exist today".
  2. Bearcat says: the required minimum number.
    Reality says: WP:SMALLCAT does not specify a minimum number, and has never specified a minimum number.
What on earth do you hope to achive by repeatedly posting such fantasies? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't post "fantasies", and if you ever accuse me of such a thing again I'm taking you to WP:RFC for violating WP:NPA. What I said was a 100 per cent correct summary of the actual state of CFD's actual consensus around dedicated "Mayors of City" categories: the test is not "a SMALLCAT-passing number of articles might be theoretically possible someday", but "a SMALLCAT-passing number of articles either (a) already exists or (b) has a documentable prospect of being made to exist in the near future". I'm not wrong about that: approximately a thousand past CFD discussions on comparable categories have already established that I'm correct. For another thing, if all a category had to do to escape SMALLCAT was be theoretically expandable because more articles were theoretically possible, then SMALLCAT would be a completely unenforceable rule that we'd have to deprecate — every SMALLCAT could always make the claim that it was theoretically expandable, so nothing would ever be a SMALLCAT violation anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, take me to a noticeboard if you like ... but that won't alter the fact that you are repeatedly posting fantasies.
WP:SMALLCAT explicitly says "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time."
Why do you keep on posting the opposite? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not post "fantasies". I posted what I said because I am 100 PER CENT CORRECT about it. I am correct about how CFD actually interprets that criterion when it comes up for discussion, and I am correct that your interpretation of what SMALLCAT means inherently causes SMALLCAT to defeat itself, because every SMALLCAT could always claim to be theoretically expandable someday, and thus no SMALLCAT would ever fail to qualify for that exemption from SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Academic people related to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCASSOC, these are biographies of academics who have virtually nothing in common with respect to the title of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For the record, this category was requested by an anon editor in Brazil at AFC; the request was accepted by user:Paquito590 and then renamed for better grammar. – Fayenatic London 08:51, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I probably should have requested a change from "Academic people" to "Academics" as well as changing "related with" to "related to" in the previous discussion. If kept, it ought to be changed to "Academics." 208.95.51.38 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator comment My apologies for causing this dilemma. I'm not really sure about what should be done with the category so I'll leave it up to all of you to vote on what should be done. Once again, my apologies for this issue. Paquito590 (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCASSOC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining and incoherent. – Joe (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even a narrower attempt such as "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theorists" would be people by opinion and also fail, as must the superset of those "related" to an untenable category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the others above. I don't think this category should exist. As creator of the category I request deletion. Paquito590 (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have four articles. One is about the Viking settlement in Newfoundland; two about possible contacts with Asia, whence all native Americans are presumed to have come; one opposed the 500-year celebration of Columbus, because Native Americans made the discovery of America 10,000 or more years ago. One of them also wrote about an aberrant skull discovered in Brazil. The whole thing feels far too disparate to make a useful category. Several of the articles barely mention the topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Religious themed fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge, and recategorise two others as stated below. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the life of me, I can't see what separates this category from its parent, Category:Religion in fiction. It seems to just add an unnecessary layer of hierarchy - everything in it would happily fit in the parent or on of its other subcats with no problem. Note: If the consensus is to keep, then the name should be changed to either Category:Religious fiction or Category:Religious-themed fiction Grutness...wha? 02:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_18&oldid=871690334"